Thanks Steve
Were the guinea pigs down here in Rooland.
We get all the updates first while everyone else is still asleep..
So we have to try and muddle our way through and try and sort things out...

Looks like we will have to get to like W.L.M ;-((

ozzie

"Steve Cochran" <scochran@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:eph$zk58KHA.1888@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Recently a patch (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/978542) was released that addressed a security issue in Windows Mail. Those using
Windows Mail in Windows 7 found that Windows Mail no longer functioned properly, as they had hacked the program by replacing the
msoe.dll file with one from Vista, thereby de-crippling Windows Mail so it would then function as client application. When the
update was applied, the hacked msoe.dll was replaced by a new Windows 7 version of the dll, which again crippled Windows Mail.

The obvious solution was to replace the dll with the Vista dll again, which then restored the functionality. However, replacing the
Win7 patched dll with the Vista unpatched dll, resorts in ther user being subject to the security vulnerability. The user would be
more likely to have protection against the vulnerability, if they used the patched Vista msoe.dll (although there is no guarantee
that that version will in fact protect in Win7, as the scenario is untested).

Some have posted links to non-Microsoft websites in order for those who wish to obtain the patched Vista versions of the msoe.dll.
However, one can question the security of such websites and the files they provide as well as consider that Microsoft does not
support distribution of its dlls.

Consequently, it is best if the user obtains the patched dlls from Microsoft directly. For the given KB article referenced above,
the files can be downloaded here:

In the future, this situation will occur everytime Windows Mail is patched in Windows 7, as msoe.dll will be replaced each time. So
in the future, anyone who is hacking Windows 7 by replacing msoe.dll from Vista, will continue to have to get the patched version of
the Vista dll and replace it, as in this situation.